Capital Punishment

[quote name='Cerebral_One']You can join camoor or whatever his name is on my list ;)[/QUOTE]

Clak is a great poster, I don't always agree but his posts are typically thought provoking and reasoned.

That's a list I'm proud to be a part of.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I think most people would call a conglomeration of cells a baby, and like your point to my argument, does not make it right. I have stated where my thoughts on this come from and to push it farther than this I will add that A- until it is born and develops memory/humany qualitites it is not a person, 5-6 month delivered baby is barely a human (interesting note on babies born from intensive care, they actually experience pain differently than most people and in some cases have overactive receptors which can lead to predispositions to phantom pains and non ending pain. Interesting research in this area.) B- if there is no chance for development of meaningful life parents should have the right to terminate infants, nothing minor but for genetic diseases that can not be treated and have almost a 100% death rate, tay-sachs for example. C- this extends to adults as well, namely those with no brain function or chance at recovery. My question to you is what are your responses to the realities of "saving" these lives.

Obviously just looking at the saving of a life is not a full plan/end. Since, as a member of a society, you believe and have so far succeeded partially (outlawing certain abortion practices and limiting them to certain people) what are you strategies to "pay" for these births. I mean to just name a few, non aborted unwanted babies have a higher rate of becoming criminals, many people who need abortions are usually people who come from sub par living conditions which has been shown to limit the ability of the child to succeed in life (employment, enjoyment, education et al), as well as the increased strain on resources (government funding of young-uns especially during a time of economic struggle, something you have been drumming the beat on for a while now), and reduced prospects for said parents (who lose the ability to compete for jobs and gain education opportunities, mainly because of poor daycare options is shitty communities). Yes I am blending both the abortion debate with the poor debate, but mostly it is the poor that benefit the most from this practice. What are your answers to these? If you want to encourage behavior that saves more "kids" how are you willing to achieve this? We have seen what the no to anything approach is, and there were statically more abandoned children and babies left to die pre-abortion era as well as more failed and harmful illegal abortions back then as well. What would be a reasonable way to combat this as well? So far, your argument has more or been the flimsy moral argument, lets move past that and look towards the effects of the policy. My position is that it cuts down on the preceding problems, what is your response to these problems and why they benefit society and the person better the the allowance abortions is.

As per the high school question- Ideally? Repeal of state laws forbidding the sale of them, and secondly make birth control free for underage and subsidized for those above age of consent. Also establish either roaming PP counselors/clinics or have a permanent one at HS and MS level's that have the ability to handle and dispense bc. Admittedly there will be a sense of parent's losing control over kids education, but tough luck. If as a society we are being forced to subsidize the education of people I fucking well want society to have a stake in sexual education and ability to act upon it. If parents want that power back there is unsubsidized private schools and home schools. But honestly if a parent accepts public education they, imo, made a contract with society to allow the education of the minor to be state controlled, they lost their right to refuse when they sent their kids to school.

This is rambly but it is also late and I am tired.[/QUOTE]

Yes there needs to be a plan to support the poor.

Beyond that, this argument has no foundation. It is similiar to people advocating killing the poor because they don't contribute, we won't fund them, and they will inevitably cost society money. Why bother keeping them around, they are obviously unhappy and always will be?

Again nonexistance > poverty? Is that what we are pushing now? They are better off not existing than making life worse for everyone else with their potential to be poor? Or is it simply better for the rest of us that they do not exist? Why not just clean out the existing foster homes because we don't support them, and they would rather be dead anyway. Amiright?

Not to mention banning second trimester abortions (which is what I originally asked you) would not severly impact peoples abilities to "discard" the potentially poor, unwanted, or needy people.

You guys convince me for the most part in cases of rape, and medical complications, but I cannot wrap my head around the fact that you believe a persons recklessness should condemn a life (or bunch of cells) before it starts for the ease of the reckless person and in light of the almighty dollar. Prenancy does not destroy lives as you guys want to so deeply believe.

As for birth control in schools, you just want some random person or office where kids can go up and ask for birth control? Middle schools I think that is out of the question first off. I do not think the pregnancy rates in middle schools are high enough to warrant such an extreme measure. You have to realize that although a lot of kids think about sex at those ages, a lot don't either, and throwing condoms at them is going to do more harm than good,

Highschools would probably work, however what about the poor people you all talk about that cannot afford private schooling? Do they not have a choice in what their children are exposed to?

Regardless teenage pregnancies are only 19% of abortions in the country. With a 12-14% representation in the population that isn't overly represented.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']http://lmgtfy.com/?q=abortion+and+moral+philosophy



How am I not advocating protecting it after it becomes a human life?



Woman's choice supercedes the organism that is alive up unto the point that it becomes human. As mentioned before, I don't believe that the organism in the early stages of pregnancy is a human life.[/QUOTE]


It is funny how you so "firmly" believe this yet you fail to identify what point makes it human. You disagree with third trimester abortions, but you won't ban second trimester abortions in the same way. What do you believe is the difference?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yes there needs to be a plan to support the poor.

Beyond that, this argument has no foundation. It is similiar to people advocating killing the poor because they don't contribute, we won't fund them, and they will inevitably cost society money. Why bother keeping them around, they are obviously unhappy and always will be?

Again nonexistance > poverty? Is that what we are pushing now? They are better off not existing than making life worse for everyone else with their potential to be poor? Or is it simply better for the rest of us that they do not exist? Why not just clean out the existing foster homes because we don't support them, and they would rather be dead anyway. Amiright?

Not to mention banning second trimester abortions (which is what I originally asked you) would not severly impact peoples abilities to "discard" the potentially poor, unwanted, or needy people.

You guys convince me for the most part in cases of rape, and medical complications, but I cannot wrap my head around the fact that you believe a persons recklessness should condemn a life (or bunch of cells) before it starts for the ease of the reckless person and in light of the almighty dollar. Prenancy does not destroy lives as you guys want to so deeply believe.

As for birth control in schools, you just want some random person or office where kids can go up and ask for birth control? Middle schools I think that is out of the question first off. I do not think the pregnancy rates in middle schools are high enough to warrant such an extreme measure. You have to realize that although a lot of kids think about sex at those ages, a lot don't either, and throwing condoms at them is going to do more harm than good,

Highschools would probably work, however what about the poor people you all talk about that cannot afford private schooling? Do they not have a choice in what their children are exposed to?

Regardless teenage pregnancies are only 19% of abortions in the country. With a 12-14% representation in the population that isn't overly represented.[/QUOTE]

Okay then, what are your plans to do so, because it seems like your policy positions on ways to help support poor people who need more services in terms of procreation seem to go against your general ideology. Enlighten me to how you would achieve this benevolent government that is fully inline with austerity and boot strap ideology.

Secondly no, re-read what I wrote. While what I wrote might seem to lend itself to the old construct you are used to, it most certainly not nonexistence>poverty. My general approach is that only living things that contain humany qualities, mental, spiritual, and or cognitive properties are humans to me. Anything unborn does not contain any of these qualities, mainly because they have yet to gain temporal reasoning or experience/growth. They quite simply are not human to me, and will not be until they start to gain and remember experiences and learned traits. My point with the poor was more of an attempt to tie it to a socio-economic problem in order make my position more concrete than purely theoretical. Only a fucked up individual would even entertain the idea of "clean out the existing foster homes".

My position, I thought at least, gave my position on second trimester abortions. I am for abortion up until a fetus has the ability to start to accrue humany qualities, namely birth on up.

You guys, as I am trying to understand, refers to people like Camoor, Clak, and others that are engaging you in debate, and I will not stand up for their positions, mostly for fear of misrepresenting them
_____________________

Nope, not some random person a trained professional. Sorry if I was not clear on that. Further more, yes I believe it should be handed out in middle school. My reasoning on this is if a person is young enough to be educated about sex, they should have access to said devices of prevention. I don't believe in going halfway. It would be like forcing a person to read the DMV handbook 3 years before they are allowed to drive, sloppy and a waste of time. Secondly, I would really like to see some study and or, at the very least, reason why supplying contraceptives would do more harm than good. Also try to do so without invoking the old moral hazard bullshit, it is not a rational position to take considering how people were against things like rock and roll due to moral hazards. Sometime history proves some of these moral hazards right, i.e. heroin addiction after civil war, but very few are proven true in the eyes of history.

If the south teaches us anything, homeschooling can be done by even the poorest of individuals.

Irregardless statistics for my overall point, but either way, 20% is not a number to scoff at either. Also I wonder how certain laws play into the abortion rates of youth in certain states and localities as well, just not enough to dig deeper into this topic to find out. Sadly there are too many question but not enough time to gain the answers.

Again it is very late hopefully my message isn't to garbled and I understood your position, or lack there of. Seriously there was not one iota of response to the question I raised to you about the problems with your own position, just more plinking at mine.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yes there needs to be a plan to support the poor.

Beyond that, this argument has no foundation. It is similiar to people advocating killing the poor because they don't contribute, we won't fund them, and they will inevitably cost society money. Why bother keeping them around, they are obviously unhappy and always will be?
[/QUOTE]

I always thought you tacitly believed this. I've never seen you advocate for a single solitary specific government policy that would help the poor, you are always on the side of 'tax breaks for the rich'.

[quote name='Knoell']It is funny how you so "firmly" believe this yet you fail to identify what point makes it human. You disagree with third trimester abortions, but you won't ban second trimester abortions in the same way. What do you believe is the difference?[/QUOTE]

It has to do with the development of the fetus into a baby. At some point it goes beyond the stage of mere mammalian fetus into baby. As I've said before, pinpointing the exact moment a fetus becomes a baby is something better left up to a team of the best biologists and moral philosophers in our society then a layman like myself.
 
With abortion, I think it is shockingly criminal to bring a child into this world you have no means of supporting. And to force someone to carry to term a child that is unwanted harms numerous lives in an incredibly destructive way. Over 100 billion lives have come and gone since man walked the earth in his currently evolved form. So many things we do are counter-intuitive, are unproductive, are harmful to our selves, the people we love, the other occupants of this world and the world itself. Deciding you are unfit, or not ready to bring another life into this is a decision that should not be made lightly, but should be allowed to be made with dignity, with decency and without being arrogantly judged by hypocritical individuals blind to the myriad ways their own life choices knowingly and unknowingly snips pieces off other people's lives.

With capital punishment, the further the field of neuroscience advances, the closer we get to a precipice where free will does not exist. If someone develops a brain tumor, and that tumor forces them to kill or rape other people, so that if it is removed and the person is normal again, how do we judge those individuals? The majority of prisoners will re-enter society. I think, as others have said, rehabilitation needs to be the end goal. Capital punishment seems like justice for terrible crimes, but again, those that perform terrible crimes are often broken on the inside. Responsibility for one's actions is very important, but if there is something wrong in a person's mind, and not solely in a criminally insane sense, it undermines the justice of punishments.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Okay then, what are your plans to do so, because it seems like your policy positions on ways to help support poor people who need more services in terms of procreation seem to go against your general ideology. Enlighten me to how you would achieve this benevolent government that is fully inline with austerity and boot strap ideology. [/QUOTE]

I think someone else in the thread already pointed out knoell is probably just not being honest.

If I had to guess there are 56 caveats behind the so-called policies would support it is meaningless.
 
[quote name='vherub']With abortion, I think it is shockingly criminal to bring a child into this world you have no means of supporting. And to force someone to carry to term a child that is unwanted harms numerous lives in an incredibly destructive way. Over 100 billion lives have come and gone since man walked the earth in his currently evolved form. So many things we do are counter-intuitive, are unproductive, are harmful to our selves, the people we love, the other occupants of this world and the world itself. Deciding you are unfit, or not ready to bring another life into this is a decision that should not be made lightly, but should be allowed to be made with dignity, with decency and without being arrogantly judged by hypocritical individuals blind to the myriad ways their own life choices knowingly and unknowingly snips pieces off other people's lives.

[/QUOTE]


You are forgetting that there is a decision to be made before you get pregnant. You have to take responsibility for your actions. Taking part in the act of reproducing is the choice you make. You do not decide afterwards that you do not want children.

If you do not use birth control it is your responsibility.
If you do use birth control, it is still your responsibility.

With your guys logic, no man should have to pay child support. He didnt want the child, so why should he have to pay? BS.
 
[quote name='camoor']I always thought you tacitly believed this. I've never seen you advocate for a single solitary specific government policy that would help the poor, you are always on the side of 'tax breaks for the rich'.



It has to do with the development of the fetus into a baby. At some point it goes beyond the stage of mere mammalian fetus into baby. As I've said before, pinpointing the exact moment a fetus becomes a baby is something better left up to a team of the best biologists and moral philosophers in our society then a layman like myself.[/QUOTE]

So again you do not know when, or it doesn't matter when to you. You would think if that moment really mattered to you then you would halt abortions at least near that range (2nd trimester) until you were sure.

Tax breaks for the rich? You mean the bush tax cuts that cut taxes for everyone? Those ones? Ohhh you must be complaining that the rich got more money back then the other brackets. Yeahhh that kind of happens when you pay in proportion to your income.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is always about punishing the sluts rather than concern for life.[/QUOTE]


Why make men pay for child support then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']Okay then, what are your plans to do so, because it seems like your policy positions on ways to help support poor people who need more services in terms of procreation seem to go against your general ideology. Enlighten me to how you would achieve this benevolent government that is fully inline with austerity and boot strap ideology.

Secondly no, re-read what I wrote. While what I wrote might seem to lend itself to the old construct you are used to, it most certainly not nonexistence>poverty. My general approach is that only living things that contain humany qualities, mental, spiritual, and or cognitive properties are humans to me. Anything unborn does not contain any of these qualities, mainly because they have yet to gain temporal reasoning or experience/growth. They quite simply are not human to me, and will not be until they start to gain and remember experiences and learned traits. My point with the poor was more of an attempt to tie it to a socio-economic problem in order make my position more concrete than purely theoretical. Only a fucked up individual would even entertain the idea of "clean out the existing foster homes".

My position, I thought at least, gave my position on second trimester abortions. I am for abortion up until a fetus has the ability to start to accrue humany qualities, namely birth on up.

You guys, as I am trying to understand, refers to people like Camoor, Clak, and others that are engaging you in debate, and I will not stand up for their positions, mostly for fear of misrepresenting them
_____________________

Nope, not some random person a trained professional. Sorry if I was not clear on that. Further more, yes I believe it should be handed out in middle school. My reasoning on this is if a person is young enough to be educated about sex, they should have access to said devices of prevention. I don't believe in going halfway. It would be like forcing a person to read the DMV handbook 3 years before they are allowed to drive, sloppy and a waste of time. Secondly, I would really like to see some study and or, at the very least, reason why supplying contraceptives would do more harm than good. Also try to do so without invoking the old moral hazard bullshit, it is not a rational position to take considering how people were against things like rock and roll due to moral hazards. Sometime history proves some of these moral hazards right, i.e. heroin addiction after civil war, but very few are proven true in the eyes of history.

If the south teaches us anything, homeschooling can be done by even the poorest of individuals.

Irregardless statistics for my overall point, but either way, 20% is not a number to scoff at either. Also I wonder how certain laws play into the abortion rates of youth in certain states and localities as well, just not enough to dig deeper into this topic to find out. Sadly there are too many question but not enough time to gain the answers.

Again it is very late hopefully my message isn't to garbled and I understood your position, or lack there of. Seriously there was not one iota of response to the question I raised to you about the problems with your own position, just more plinking at mine.[/QUOTE]

Your message is quite garbaled. I don't even know where to start. First off I guess you do not know my ideology. I guess since I am a conservative I fit nicely into your little definition, but as with most people that isn't the case. I see a need for social programs and helping the poor. The way the government is going about it is what I disagree with. As we have seen with education (at least in NY) throwing money at it isn't always the best solution.

Secondly I would guarentee you that the majority of Americans do not hold your view of irrelavance until it reaches " humany qualities, mental, spiritual, and or cognitive properties". Hence why third trimester abortions are illegal except for particular exceptions. Do you oppose third trimester abortions?

You continue to ignore my point that 2nd trimester abortions are a fraction of total abortions, and you continue to claim the "problem" children would soon overburden our system of care, or lack there of.

Lastly, birth control. You again ignore my response that teenage pregnancies 14 and under are not the issue. If you disagree show me some statistic that says they are represented in carried to term pregnancies and abortions.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your message is quite garbaled. I don't even know where to start. First off I guess you do not know my ideology. I guess since I am a conservative I fit nicely into your little definition, but as with most people that isn't the case. I see a need for social programs and helping the poor. The way the government is going about it is what I disagree with. As we have seen with education (at least in NY) throwing money at it isn't always the best solution.

Secondly I would guarentee you that the majority of Americans do not hold your view of irrelavance until it reaches " humany qualities, mental, spiritual, and or cognitive properties". Hence why third trimester abortions are illegal except for particular exceptions. Do you oppose third trimester abortions?

You continue to ignore my point that 2nd trimester abortions are a fraction of total abortions, and you continue to claim the "problem" children would soon overburden our system of care, or lack there of.

Lastly, birth control. You again ignore my response that teenage pregnancies 14 and under are not the issue. If you disagree show me some statistic that says they are represented in carried to term pregnancies and abortions.[/QUOTE]


Point 1 - I will take your word that I don't understand your ideology.

Point 2 - I think it is rather a question of time than not holding my beliefs. I think the underlying assumption that people use to justify it is that it is not a person yet, ala camoor. I have simply tried to put my own justification to get around the morality position. So I do not oppose third trimester abortion; why would I? Either way this is irrelevant to the points I pushed forward.

Point 3 - I don't ignore it, I gave my opinion. If there is a history of an age group where the pregnancies are not statistical anomalies, then they need BC. I see no point in dallying around the age of the person, especially considering kids of this age should be taught more about sexuality anyway and most times are. But I am not partisan enough to not see your side of the argument (no matter how small it is, because seriously your last two paragraphs are more moral demagoging than actual points, and your statistics question is a non issue considering bc does more than just prevent pregnancies). To this I would say maybe, but I would still prefer that things like abortions and STD's be raised while they are learning about sexual abuse (a serious problem for anyone above the age of 10) as a way to help people understand what might happen if they are abused and do become pregnant. However if moral crusaders are against anyone below the age of 14 getting jimmy hats and the pill, fine.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Point 1 - I will take your word that I don't understand your ideology.[/QUOTE]

Knoells ilk are killing people in Arizona for want of payment for organ transplants and are currently going after WIC.

Either he is less than honest about his ideology or even he doesn't understand it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Either he is less than honest about his ideology or even he doesn't understand it.[/QUOTE]
Maybe. Either way he really likes to paint people in a corner.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So again you do not know when, or it doesn't matter when to you. You would think if that moment really mattered to you then you would halt abortions at least near that range (2nd trimester) until you were sure.[/QUOTE]

Why? I don't know the ins-and-outs of how a nuclear reactor works, but I do know I want it to be safe. Likewise I don't know the ins-and-outs of the human gestation period but I do know that I want policies surrounding it to be sensible.

[quote name='Knoell']Tax breaks for the rich? You mean the bush tax cuts that cut taxes for everyone? Those ones? Ohhh you must be complaining that the rich got more money back then the other brackets. Yeahhh that kind of happens when you pay in proportion to your income.[/QUOTE]

You have a real fucked up belief system. You care more about a zygote then all the poor families of America put together (at least the poor folks that have physically exited their mother's womb).
 
[quote name='camoor']I always thought you tacitly believed this. I've never seen you advocate for a single solitary specific government policy that would help the poor, you are always on the side of 'tax breaks for the rich'.



It has to do with the development of the fetus into a baby. At some point it goes beyond the stage of mere mammalian fetus into baby. As I've said before, pinpointing the exact moment a fetus becomes a baby is something better left up to a team of the best biologists and moral philosophers in our society then a layman like myself.[/QUOTE]This post just makes me laugh, you're saying that before some point that the fetus isn't human?
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']This post just makes me laugh, you're saying that before some point that the fetus isn't human?[/QUOTE]

I said a fetus is not necessarily a baby. Read it again sucker.

If it was a Venn diagram there would be a circle labeled "fetus", a circle labeled "baby" and a section of the two circles that overlapped. We'll all wait here while you google "Venn Diagram"
 
[quote name='camoor']I said a fetus is not necessarily a baby. Read it again sucker.

If it was a Venn diagram there would be a circle labeled "fetus", a circle labeled "baby" and a section of the two circles that overlapped. We'll all wait here while you google "Venn Diagram"[/QUOTE]
So you can kill a fetus because it isn't a baby, so then why can't you kill a toddler because it isn't a teenager or a teenager because it's not an adult? Using your logic you should be able to, after all being a fetus is just a growth phase, same as baby, toddler, teen, and so on.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']So you can kill a fetus because it isn't a baby, so then why can't you kill a toddler because it isn't a teenager or a teenager because it's not an adult? Using your logic you should be able to, after all being a fetus is just a growth phase, same as baby, toddler, teen, and so on.[/QUOTE]

This post just makes me sigh. Are you 11 years old?
 
Here is a question, if scientists have a breakthrough and say life begins in the second month of prenancy, what would you say camoor?

I don't know why I am asking this. You already concede that you believe life begins somewhere in the second trimester, yet you won't ban second trimester abortions. I am just trying to figure out how you think you are basing opinion on scientific fact and pro life people aren't. You don't even know or understand what makes it human, and frankly I don't think you care.

Meanwhile pro lifers are backed by scientific research that shows a human embryo is a human at the earliest stage of development, and under the right environment will always grow into a mature human.

But prolifers are the ones going by blind crazed philosophical/religious belief, not you guys. Not one bit, right? Pure science for you guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']This post just makes me sigh. Are you 11 years old?[/QUOTE]

Notice how you haven't answered my question, why is it alright to kill a fetus but not a baby or anybody at any other stage of life?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Here is a question, if scientists have a breakthrough and say life begins in the second month of prenancy, what would you say camoor?

I don't know why I am asking this. You already concede that you believe life begins somewhere in the second trimester, yet you won't ban second trimester abortions. I am just trying to figure out how you think you are basing opinion on scientific fact and pro life people aren't. You don't even know or understand what makes it human, and frankly I don't think you care.

Meanwhile pro lifers are backed by scientific research that shows a human embryo is a human at the earliest stage of development, and under the right environment will always grow into a mature human.

But prolifers are the ones going by blind crazed philosophical/religious belief, not you guys. Not one bit, right? Pure science for you guys.[/QUOTE]

That's funny, I haven't seen any scientific research from you about the fetus being human at the earliest stage of development, only questions about my (admittedly layman) point of view. You put up the claim, back it up with links or GTFO.

[quote name='unluckynumber11']Notice how you haven't answered my question, why is it alright to kill a fetus but not a baby or anybody at any other stage of life?[/QUOTE]

I answered it about 5 times already for Knoell. Go read the thread and stop wasting my time or I'll just ignore you.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's funny, I haven't seen any scientific research from you about the fetus being human at the earliest stage of development, only questions about my (admittedly layman) point of view. You put up the claim, back it up with links or GTFO.



I answered it about 5 times already for Knoell. Go read the thread and stop wasting my time or I'll just ignore you.[/QUOTE]
Because a Zygote isn't Human? What is it then? Bovine? Canine? Feline? It has all 46 chromosomes of a human, it will grow into a human and nothing else, what then doesn't make it human?
 
[quote name='camoor']That's funny, I haven't seen any scientific research from you about the fetus being human at the earliest stage of development, only questions about my (admittedly layman) point of view. You put up the claim, back it up with links or GTFO.

[/QUOTE]

First off, you answer nothing. You claim to be against third trimester abortions for a reason you admittedly do not know. Secondly you will not provide your own proof that a fetus develops something that makes it human at some point, which again you admittedly say is most likely in the second trimester.

Lastly you have got to be kidding me. Take a gander at the development process in pregnancy. The proof is overwhelming that it is human. To ignore that is blatently ignoring science.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

But again you are basing your assumptions off of science right? and not some philosophical view that the baby can't think yet so it isn't morally wrong.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Because a Zygote isn't Human? What is it then? Bovine? Canine? Feline? It has all 46 chromosomes of a human, it will grow into a human and nothing else, what then doesn't make it human?[/QUOTE]

Are we going to play semantics then?

Specific zygotes do have the potential to become a human being. So does human sperm.

That doesn't mean that these zygotes are a human being.
 
[quote name='camoor']Are we going to play semantics then?

Specific zygotes do have the potential to become a human being. So does human sperm.

That doesn't mean that these zygotes are a human being.[/QUOTE]

Sperm by itself won't become a baby, I thought you would know that. If a Zygote is left in the womb it will become a fetus then baby, if you just place a lone sperm in the womb with no egg it won't become anything. Zygotes are human and nothing else, all medical and scientific data supports this, but I guess they're wrong too.
 
[quote name='Knoell']First off, you answer nothing. You claim to be against third trimester abortions for a reason you admittedly do not know. Secondly you will not provide your own proof that a fetus develops something that makes it human at some point, which again you admittedly say is most likely in the second trimester.

Lastly you have got to be kidding me. Take a gander at the development process in pregnancy. The proof is overwhelming that it is human. To ignore that is blatently ignoring science.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

But again you are basing your assumptions off of science right? and not some philosophical view that the baby can't think yet so it isn't morally wrong.[/QUOTE]

So what. This is just the developmental process. I see nothing that proves that the zygote or the developmental phases immediately following that should count as a human being in the eyes of the law. This has to be one of the most half-assed, laziest, and insulting attempts at a bluff that I have ever read. After all of your bs grandstanding how can you not be embarrassed for yourself?

Also I base my opinion on philosophy and a layman's understanding of the science (roughly equivelent to what is stated in the article you posted). Determining the exact moment that a fetus becomes human isn't a question that can be wholly proven or disproven by the scientific method.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Sperm by itself won't become a baby, I thought you would know that. If a Zygote is left in the womb it will become a fetus then baby[/QUOTE]

* Implantation errors. Human embryos have to nestle down in a good home, in the uterus. If the mother's hormones are not just right, that can prevent implantation, and the otherwise healthy zygote may be sloughed away. In addition, 0.5 - 1% of all pregnancies are ectopic: the zygote tries to implant in the wrong place, most often in the fallopian tubes. This is always fatal for the embryo, and has the potential to be fatal for the mother."
Click to expand...

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k4ch39repronotes.html

Not necessarily. But I thought you would know that.

(see isn't this fun)
 
[quote name='camoor']http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k4ch39repronotes.html

Not necessarily. But I thought you would know that.

(see isn't this fun)[/QUOTE]

So miscarriages and biological errors in the implantation and growth process prove that it's not human? Did you not read the article that you provided? Obviously if there are no problems with the development process then you will become a fetus then baby and so on. When Zygotes grow they eventually become a Fetus then Baby, I'm not really sure what's so hard to understand about that. Also if it isn't human before some "point" then of what species is it?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Why does it matter whether or not its human again? Lets say its a human the entire time. So what?[/QUOTE]

Then you're killing a human.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Why does it matter whether or not its human again? Lets say its a human the entire time. So what?[/QUOTE]
Than were mass murderes. :)
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Because a Zygote isn't Human? What is it then? Bovine? Canine? Feline? It has all 46 chromosomes of a human, it will grow into a human and nothing else, what then doesn't make it human?[/QUOTE]
It's a parasite.

[quote name='Knoell']
But prolifers are the ones going by blind crazed philosophical/religious belief, not you guys. Not one bit, right? Pure science for you guys.[/QUOTE]

Sensationalist posts are sensationalist.
 
Thats a problem with the current legal structure. As I said before, the only thing that matters is suffering. Morally or philosophically, whether we call it a human or not has no bearing whatsoever.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Thats a problem with the current legal structure. As I said before, the only thing that matters is suffering. Morally or philosophically, whether we call it a human or not has no bearing whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
So as long as we kill somebody without them suffering then it's OK?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Thats a problem with the current legal structure. As I said before, the only thing that matters is suffering. Morally or philosophically, whether we call it a human or not has no bearing whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
I just read your views on this subject and cognition of pain is an interesting approach to see the issue through. May I ask why you have chosen to focus on cognition of pain rather than just cognition of self?

[quote name='unluckynumber11']So as long as we kill zygote without them suffering then it's OK?[/QUOTE]
Fixed
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']So miscarriages and biological errors in the implantation and growth process prove that it's not human? Did you not read the article that you provided? Obviously if there are no problems with the development process then you will become a fetus then baby and so on. When Zygotes grow they eventually become a Fetus then Baby, I'm not really sure what's so hard to understand about that. Also if it isn't human before some "point" then of what species is it?[/QUOTE]

Strawman much?

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Thats a problem with the current legal structure. As I said before, the only thing that matters is suffering. Morally or philosophically, whether we call it a human or not has no bearing whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

A pure utilitarian. Seems a bit crass to me, I think the title of "human being" should carry legal weight. I just advocate that people think carefully about what consititutes a human being, and it's not my custom to think of a rasberry-sized cluster of cells in the same context as my next-door neighbor.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I just read your views on this subject and cognition of pain is an interesting approach to see the issue through. May I ask why you have chosen to focus on cognition of pain rather than just cognition of self?


Fixed[/QUOTE]

What makes a zygote so special that if we kill it without it feeling pain that makes it OK? Why can't one then say it's OK to kill anyone else at any other stage of life as long as they don't feel pain?
 
[quote name='camoor']Strawman much?



A pure utilitarian. Seems a bit crass to me, I think the title of "human being" should carry legal weight. I just advocate that people think carefully about what consititutes a human being, and it's not my custom to think of a rasberry-sized cluster of cells in the same context as my next-door neighbor.[/QUOTE]

How exactly is that a strawman? You said that a zygote isn't human, and so then I ask "what species is it if it isn't human?". If you don't want to answer my question because you can't just say so.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']What makes a zygote so special that if we kill it without it feeling pain that makes it OK? Why can't one then say it's OK to kill anyone else at any other stage of life as long as they don't feel pain?[/QUOTE]
You're confusing me with the good Dr, I have already offered my opinion on the subject and this was not it. Just clowning you a bit to keep your terms correct.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']May I ask why you have chosen to focus on cognition of pain rather than just cognition of self?
[/QUOTE]
Its really not a focus of one over the other. They're both linked. You need the idea of a self in order to register suffering. I say idea since the self is inherently false. The requirements to have a sense of self are largely the same as the ones required for the capacity to suffer. I guess the exception is if you were born with the defect of not feeling anything at all, I guess you could still feel mental anguish should you live long enough to realize your condition. Without looking into it, I would say this is largely theoretical.

Otherwise in order to suffer:
- You need a spinal column/advanced central nervous system
- You need the capacity to remember (in order to maintain some level of self).

[quote name='unluckynumber11']So as long as we kill somebody without them suffering then it's OK?[/QUOTE]

Depends what you mean by them. If we kill something that has an idea of self, that is a problem. But killing off biology or humans or whatever you would like to call it, prior to the the self and the ability to suffer, is fine by me. As I said before, I would be fine with state sanctioned abortion of 1 year olds for any reason that the family could come up with. Maybe the mother lost a football bet. Of course this is unlikely, but the amount of zeal people carry into a legal procedure is not generally a precondition to being able to receive said procedure.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Its really not a focus of one over the other. They're both linked. You need the idea of a self in order to register suffering. I say idea since the self is inherently false. The requirements to have a sense of self are largely the same as the ones required for the capacity to suffer. I guess the exception is if you were born with the defect of not feeling anything at all, I guess you could still feel mental anguish should you live long enough to realize your condition. Without looking into it, I would say this is largely theoretical.

Otherwise in order to suffer:
- You need a spinal column/advanced central nervous system
- You need the capacity to remember (in order to maintain some level of self).



Depends what you mean by them. If we kill something that has an idea of self, that is a problem. But killing off biology or humans or whatever you would like to call it, prior to the the self and the ability to suffer, is fine by me. As I said before, I would be fine with state sanctioned abortion of 1 year olds for any reason that the family could come up with. Maybe the mother lost a football bet. Of course this is unlikely, but the amount of zeal people carry into a legal procedure is not generally a precondition to being able to receive said procedure.[/QUOTE]
So Infanticide is alright then? What about killing those who are in a coma or even those who are asleep since they are not self-conscious?
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']How exactly is that a strawman? You said that a zygote isn't human, and so then I ask "what species is it if it isn't human?". If you don't want to answer my question because you can't just say so.[/QUOTE]

You said "If a Zygote is left in the womb it will become a fetus then baby"

I pointed out that's a fallacy (IE it could implant incorrectly or fail to develop because there is a hormonal imbalance in the mother's body)

Then you launched into a strawman arguement.

I see you're now back to semantics. There is a difference between a zygote belonging to the homo spaciens species and the question of what stage of development should constitute being a human being in the eyes of the law.

For example - sperm can be human but you (probably) would not say that a sperm is a human. Am I right on that - or do you think that a human sperm is a human being?
 
Thats something of an aside, and depends on how exactly you define/think of what the self is and what its qualities are. Generally, I find that there is no way to make the idea of self consistent with basic causality. Secondarily, if you are hooked up to fancy equipment, your actions can be predicted before you are cognizant of having made the decision to do them. Sometimes by a margin of fractions of a moment, sometimes by considerably farther out. The idea that you decided to do something is a tale weaved after the fact. Thirdly, the intricate inter-connectedness of all things, from the macro to the micro make distinct objects (self or otherwise) impossible, or at the very least illusory and arbitrary.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']So Infanticide is alright then? What about killing those who are in a coma or even those who are asleep since they are not self-conscious?[/QUOTE]
Has to be done by our buddies at the State, but yes infanticide is fine. I believe the status quo works for the 2nd question. If the sense of self is not present but was previously, then your wishes prior to then are valid. If your desire is not known, then your family makes the decision. If you have no family and the state is taking care of you, I assume that they will at some point pull the plug, given that they are not going to shell out those expenses indefinitely. Or do they?, I'm not entirely clear on state protocol in these matters.
 
[quote name='camoor']You said "If a Zygote is left in the womb it will become a fetus then baby"

I pointed out that's a fallacy (IE it could implant incorrectly or fail to develop because there is a hormonal imbalance in the mother's body)

Then you launched into a strawman arguement.

I see you're now back to semantics. There is a difference between a zygote belonging to the homo spaciens species and the question of what stage of development should constitute being a human being in the eyes of the law.

For example - sperm can be human but you (probably) would not say that a sperm is a human. Am I right on that - or do you think that a human sperm is a human being?[/QUOTE]
If everything goes normally then a Zygote will become a Fetus then a baby. Surely you don't think that a sperm by itself can become a fetus and then a baby? This isn't semantics this a key point in the whole debate, is the Zygote human? Yes quite obviously it is.
I couldn't care less what the law says is or isn't human, the law doesn't have the final word on many things and we shouldn't let the law dictate our morals. If a Zygote is human, and killing humans is wrong, then wouldn't killing Zygotes be wrong? And Sperm isn't a complete human, it is only a piece of it needing the egg to then have all 46 chromosomes and become an embryo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top